Re: a comment on Searching by dougsoderstrom	13-Jul-04/3:24 AM
What a dim response. In fact, your return to poemranker may best be described as "a period of general dimming, followed by changeless brown."
Re: a comment on A Girl’s Climax by Dovina	13-Jul-04/3:20 AM
Regarding your first point: Are you stupid?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	7-Jul-04/3:23 AM
You clod! PS-I'm moving to the Middle East today. Sorry I can't stick around for more of this amazingly! exciting! and worthwhile! discussion!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: a comment on Whore by gavinduff	7-Jul-04/3:19 AM
Nope.
Re: a comment on Tapestry Years by Quarton	6-Jul-04/7:07 PM
Not all of them.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:52 PM
What still amazes me is how easy things become if you just start with the assumption that logic and proof are bunk. It means YOU'RE ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:39 PM
Because I checked the details of my electron story on a dozen websites with animated gifs of dragyns and hilarious titles like "Scientists Prove Science Doesn't Know Anything!!!!" I just... well, I just don't want you falling in with that crowd. They're smelly and do the pot.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:31 PM
Do you mean that wasn't the news story you'd heard about or that it wasn't your intent to make it an anti-science poem? Because in all honesty, I've imagined it turning into a sweet poem about a scientist trying to balance his work and home-life with his secret identity as a crime-fighting superhero who uses science for good, rather than evil as you might expect.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:17 PM
PS-I'm saying that because I imagine you thinking it's a great way to prove science wrong when all it will really do is prove you wrong.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:12 PM
There is a famous popular myth regarding electrons being seen in two places at once. I say it's a myth because the people spouting off about it don't have any more idea about it than if it were completely untrue (cf. yourself). As it happens, it is partly real and has mostly to do with the equation for the probability that an electron will be in a certain volume of space at a certain instant. The equation is defined for all space and time, with the result that the electron is calculated to be in all possible places at any instant, though when you actually observe an electron you find that it's actually only in one place at any instant. For reasons beyond my comprehension, some people say the wave function has "collapsed" at that point and it's some huge mystery. Now, since I've been nice and told you, let me make a serious suggestion that I hope you will seriously consider: PLEASE DON'T WRITE ABOUT THIS.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/5:01 PM
Are you ten years old?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/4:59 PM
Oh. I imagine there being all kinds of problems with that.
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	6-Jul-04/4:53 PM
Lol!
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/2:43 PM
Are you aware of how many times you've contradicted yourself on this page? PS-stop hitting return at the ends of your lines. It marks you as a world-class moron!
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/2:40 PM
Thanks. But really it's about whether Quarton's poem is a festering mound of nonsense. When I called him on his crap science, he grasped for the bit about "reality becomes fantasy" and has clung on for his life ever since, though it's meant contradicting himself at every turn.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/1:56 PM
I don't find that it's necessary to make those distinctions. When I'm thirsty, the set of impressions which I call a coffee cup do a decent job getting the set of impressions I call liquid where I want them. I guess you could call that a guffy way to deal with the problem of coffee-cup existence/nonexistence - and it is. And it's convenient. If it's ever not - if, say, a coffee cup suddenly becomes gaseous in my hand or fails to act according to my notion of gravity - I'll have to modify my behavior to account for the change. I imagine I would be pretty level-headed about it, anyway, but it hasn't happened yet. At any rate, I do believe there's a reality of "coffee cup" only dimly perceived and expressed by me. Why shouldn't there be?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/1:48 PM
Before I tell you (clue: and it's not as fearsome and 'reality-shattering' as you think!) I want to ask you something: Why are you so excited about using some bit of science you admittedly don't know very much about in a poem? Considering that all of the science-poem lovers on this site have long ago admitted to finding science bunk and a really piss-poor way of looking at 'reality' (or 'realities'), does it not strike you that you're in the middle of a giant contradiction? I see two possible explanations: 1) That you think science needs to be shot down, tied to the back of a pickup truck, and dragged through town for its narrow-minded hubris; and the best way you can think of doing this is by using the language of science against it; or 2) That science-words give your poem a credibility and appearance of depth which other words don't, even though you don't personally know much about science or think it's necessary to know much about science other than it's bad. And can't you see that both of these ideas are first-rate crap? For one thing, nobody even remotely connected with science on this site has said anything like you imagine scientists (on, say, "The Hulk") saying. They don't believe their current ideas about 'reality' are correct and infallible. They don't cling to some disproven notion, or discount the possibility of other models for things. In short, they don't cackle madly, mutter myopically over beakers in basement labs, oblivious to the 'reality' going on around them, or anything of the sort, except in the guff daydreams of silly young poets. Besides, since practically no one on this site can manage to use a science-word coherently in a sentence, and since a scientist is likely to consider incoherent babble rather meaningless, then it's not like you're going to hurt them, nor anyone else who believes in science, reason, or anything except floundering guff-talking. As for possibility 2 - well, clearly they don't, since science poems, like this poem, are almost always obviously wrong. Wouldn't it work a lot better, seem deeper, etc., if you simply used language and concepts you were familiar with instead of the foreign language of science? You're asking about a dust-particlee being observed in two places at once - Can you not think of A SINGLE EXAMPLE of something similar in your everyday life? (Hint: I can!) Why don't you just use that instead?!!?!
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	6-Jul-04/1:22 PM
I have a friend who speaks incredible, erection-inducing Russian. I think Arabic, the language I'm learning now, is beautiful, though most people say it sounds like crap.
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	6-Jul-04/1:18 PM
How do you think Spanish makes the mundane sound beautiful?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/1:12 PM
Yes.